Quote Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
I can't believe this thread keeps going



The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.

Even if I would agree on those 3 values/concept/whatever being developped in the West (I expect you not to quote the Even if and say "thanks for proving my point"), it does not really matter since we did not live up to those values/concept/whatever, betrayed them multiple times, and only pay lip service to them when we deem it convenient.
Does that really disprove Pindar's point because the West has often failed to actually "live" up to the values/concepts/standards that were mentioned?

So basically we'd be superior for advocating ideas we do not defend nor apply. Hypocrisy.
Not really - a human failing mabybe, an inablity to accomplish the standards that one would like to accomplish definetly. However even given the wrongs and the failures - one can not say the Western World did not accomplish such things.

And as far as the orignal text goes, the Wars on War... A nice sum up of selective facts, a big does of right-wing mythology; like... links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Even your own governement does not believe that anymore...
Selective Facts - can also be said of many left-wing mythology and information.

I don't think you'd find many here that you would call Lefties or liberal who were or are now againts the war in Afghanistan... Hell, you even got German and French troops there! You even got Euro weenies support in that war!
Do the author failed to mention the nearly full support given on the war on Afghanistan, only because it does not fit with his frame and purpose?
Yes indeed a nice selective bent by the baised author of this article - however again the author wanted to make a point.

Depicting all non righters as soft on Terror?
I'd call that intellectually dishonest...
Not really - given that some are soft on Terror in the eyes of the author.

If he were really interested in the Left approach to the war in Afghanistan, he could have given a much larger sample of opinion... but that would hve included pro war leftie... and that would ruin his final point.
Again not really - it would of made it harder for him to prove, it would require a longer article, it would of required doing a better journalistic job.

As far as the "war on terror" is going (whatever a war on terror is...), give time to history. We'll see in 20 years how that region is.
Yep - and to say anything different would be intellectually dishonest.

Eventually the last 3 final points try to frame the Left so that they fit the picture
Don't you know some pro war leftie? Even the war in Iraq? Are all lefties utopian pacifist? Really? Then why have they agreed with the war in Afghanistan?
Again not all lefties want the war in Afganstan either. You accuse the author of intectual dishonesty and demonstrate it yourself. A little hypocrisy on your part - or like the auther are you attempting to strike a point?

Eventually, I find it utterly disgusting to blame recent bombings on the left. If anyone is to blame it's the bombers. So because I don't have the same opinion as Mr Hanson on the war in Iraq, that explains why they were bombings in London?
And in that I would agree with you. Mr Hanson went to far in his opinion - but he is a pundit, just like another individual who is being discussed in a seperate thread.

Who are you kidding?

Louis,
Maybe ourselves - to include everyone.